Post navigation

Attorney General Candidate Unveils Immigration Initiative

ABERDEEN, SD (February 14, 2018) – Senator Lance Russell, South Dakota Attorney General candidate, will hold a press conference at the Holiday Inn Express & Suites in Aberdeen at 10 a.m. (CST) Friday, February 16, to unveil his recent Immigration Enforcement Bill, SB 193. This legislation will prohibit “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary campuses,” and will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee this coming Tuesday at 8 a.m. Senator Russell will also be unveiling his Immigration Plan as a South Dakota Attorney General candidate to address the ongoing issues of illegal immigration within the state.

This conference comes two days after the one-year anniversary of the passage of a “sanctuary campus” resolution by the University of South Dakota’s Student Government Association, passed on February 14, 2017. Senator Russell’s Immigration Enforcement Bill would make such actions illegal within South Dakota. It would also provide relief for South Dakota cities suffering the ravages of having law-breakers invited into the state.

The Boogyman behind every corner hysteria has overtaken elements of the SDGOP. No-Go-Zones, bathrooms, talk of militias, living in basements, Muslim Brotherhood, building a wall and boobs. What happened to the good old Republican Party that was optimistic, Cold War Patriots, fiscally sensible and not crazy?

Aguliar-Romero was on an ICE detainer. According to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s website, “ICE places detainers on aliens who have been arrested on local criminal charges and for whom ICE possesses probable cause to believe that they are removable from the United States.”

Hey Pat, you folks do realize that the particular piece of USD SGA legislation you all have been referencing was vetoed by the SGA President the day after it was passed and never actually implemented right? I’m not sure if people just don’t know that piece of the story or if they’re conveniently ignoring it for political purposes.

But isn’t the mere passage of it indicative of the mindset of a lot of young brains of mush? It was vetoed that time, but liberals go back to the well again and again until they get their way.

I’m no fan of Lance Russell, and I don’t think the word “ravages” seems appropriate, but I don’t see anything wrong with banning the intentional breaking of immigration laws of the United States of America.

Perhaps. I won’t get into it with you on my personal thoughts on immigration, but I will tell you that the most SGA can do is recommend changes to policy to administration. Just because something passes doesn’t automatically make it school policy. As someone who was there during the discussions on that particular piece of legislation there was significant pushback on certain pieces of it, specifically the recommendation that university police officers not cooperate with ICE.

The resolution that ultimately passed and was vetoed was a watered down version of the one that produced all of the initial media attention, and none of the media that covered the original story bothered to cover the follow-up. Most folks never heard about it and just assume the original passed and USD is a “sanctuary campus” even though it isn’t.

1). Sanctuary areas are basically a haven for lawlessness (selective at least) which means laws are already being broken. Why do we need a new law when all we need to do is enforce the laws being broken.

2). In particular, what are the ravages, who are the invitees doing the ravaging, who is doing the inviting, what is the proposed relief, and what is the cost.

Criticizing (or praising) before one sees specifics is jumping the gun. Liking or not liking the intent doesn’t translate automatically into a viable solution.